Ohio State Buckeyes: Jim Delany

Whether you're ready or not, Maryland and Rutgers officially become Big Ten members on Tuesday.

And the league is welcoming its two newest schools with a pair of celebrations in the East, which is now a Big Ten region.

Festivities began for Maryland on Monday with the official launch of the Terrapins' new Big Ten inaugural season apparel at the Under Armour Brand House in Baltimore. Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany attended the ceremony, along with Maryland athletic director Kevin Anderson and other Terrapins coaches and staff. Delany showed off some of the new gear in this photo:

The celebration was set to continue Monday night at Nationals Park, where Maryland and the Big Ten Network will host a block party before the Washington Nationals take on the Colorado Rockies. The league mascots also were on the loose in Washington D.C., leading to some fun pictures like this one:

Maryland will continue to recognize its entry into the Big Ten with an on-campus party at Mitchell Field from noon to 1:30 p.m on Tuesday. The event will include the unveiling of a special Big Ten ice cream.

Rutgers gets its day in the sun on Tuesday, as Delany will visit the campus for the "R B1G Party" at High Point Solutions Stadium. The event begins at 7 p.m. and is free for fans to attend. A fireworks display will begin around 9 p.m.

So, yeah, this is all happening. We'll have more on the official Big Ten entrance of Rutgers and Maryland in the blog on Tuesday.

Tackling the second of three mailblogs this week. Have questions? Send them here or tweet me here.

What's on your mind?

@mikemagnus via Twitter: Would there be as much pushback adding Maryland and Rutgers if they were added at the same time as Nebraska rather than separately?

Adam Rittenberg: Really interesting question, Mike. As Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany often says, not every expansion addition can be Nebraska or Penn State. There is filler out there (hello, Utah, Colorado and TCU) and schools brought in more for their locations than their athletic tradition. I think if this happened in 2010, the reaction could have been different. Nebraska would be celebrated and Rutgers and Maryland would be seen as a way to get closer to the superconference model.

Some of the criticism would remain, and some would wonder why the Big Ten didn't add other Big 12 schools. Remember, the eastern movement wasn't a B1G objective at the time, and the ACC hadn't added Syracuse and Pittsburgh. But overall, I don't think the backlash would be as strong because Nebraska would be a nice distraction.

Brian from Raleigh, North Carolina, writes: Hey Adam, one thing really stood out about the B1G Presidents & Chancellors' letter: they endorsed most of Kain Colter and CAPA's stated goals. As you say, none of the ideas are new, but is it safe to call this a (provisional) vindication for Colter? And what should we make of the fact that they didn't endorse a formal seat at the decision-making table for athletes?

Rittenberg: Brian, it's definitely a victory of sorts for Colter and CAPA. They would like to see more specifics and protections in the medical plans schools will offer athletes (current and former), but it's significant that the medical coverage piece is part of the signed letter. CAPA has been smart in not advocating first for a pay-for-play model, as few can argue with a push for greater medical coverage for athletes. Good point about the omission of an athlete seat at the decision-making table, although Delany and other league leaders have voiced their support for one.

Isaiah from the South Carolina cornfields writes: Adam, I believe that the best approach for scheduling nonconference opponents is a balanced one. Games against only FBS teams is a great start, but let's be honest, Eastern Michigan is probably a worse team than North Dakota State. Really, what is important is the quality of the opponent. Teams that finish within 25 places from where your team does should be the norm; this could include playoff FCS teams as well. One opponent should be a marquee team as well. Some opponents will dud out, sure, but it's better than beating up on Sun Belt and MAC teams.

Rittenberg: Isaiah, glad to hear from some cornfields outside Big Ten country. I like your plan for teams to play more comparable opponents as much as possible, but there are some potential problems. Since scheduling is done so far in advance, an opponent that looks comparable at the time the series is scheduled might have declined by the time the games are played. Ohio State found this with its recent Cal series, as Cal went from a Top 25 program between 2004-08 to a very bad one the last two seasons. I could live with FCS playoff teams, as many are better than the bottom of the FBS and they would help Big Ten teams meet their home-game demands.

@lukebilotta via Twitter: Who is the player nobody is talking about but is poised for a breakout season?

Rittenberg: Luke, since you're an Indiana fan, I know you talk about Tevin Coleman quite a bit, but he's not a known name around the Big Ten. That should change this season if Coleman stays healthy. Wisconsin's Melvin Gordon might be the top big-play back in the country, but Coleman isn't far behind. He averaged 7.3 yards per rush and 141.7 all-purpose yards in nine games last year. Perhaps that qualifies as a breakout season, but Coleman should be an even bigger part of IU's offense as a junior, and he runs behind arguably the Big Ten's best offensive line, another group no one talks about (check the blog on Thursday for more).

On defense, keep an eye on two linemen: Penn State's C.J. Olaniyan and Northwestern's Ifeadi Odenigbo. Olaniyan quietly had 11 tackles for loss and five sacks last season, and he should be even better this year. Odenigbo is a speed rusher who, in limited work, had 5.5 sacks last season. When he figures it out, he'll be a force off of the edge.

Mark from Snyderville writes: I think having a solid slate of semi-cupcakes is respectable but lacking. The MUCH tougher noncon slate in my opinion is one that can make or break your season and league perception in one game. For instance, Wisky plays LSU. That is HUGE for the B1G. Win and the perception of Wisky and the B1G changes overnight. Maybe the perception changes just for the rest of the season, but it gives you a big boost for the upcoming playoffs. Kansas State plays Auburn at home on a Thursday night. You think that game means more to the conference than, say, Texas vs. BYU? Of course it does. Give me one big, huge, giant, winner-takes-all game over 3-4 mediocre scraps any day.

Rittenberg: I tend to agree, Mark. Ohio State took this approach for years and had blockbuster, conference-perception-shaping games against teams like USC and Texas. While I would like to see one other quality opponent on the schedule, the strength of a schedule with Oregon or LSU on it trumps one with good or average teams and no cupcakes. Also, I've noticed teams that step out and truly play a marquee opponent often avoid criticism for the rest of their nonleague schedule.

Unlike other conferences, the Big Ten hasn't taken a formal position on an early signing period.

Many league coaches see the benefits but differ on when such a period would start and how exactly it would work. Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany and his colleagues will discuss early signing dates at the Conference Commissioners Association meeting this month.

Delany sees pros and cons both to the current national signing date (first Wednesday of February) and the proposed dates for a signing period in late November or December. He doesn't agree with the Aug. 1 signing date recommended by the ACC after its meetings last month.

"We have real, emerging, serious problems in the summertime," Delany told ESPN.com. "Camps, 7-on-7, it's starting to mimic men's basketball's summer, and I don't think that's been particularly healthy. What I think would be best, given that we're working through all the [NCAA] restructuring ... that we take an opportunity to study this and really look at what underlying regulations need to be changed.

"I don't think simply changing the date on a National Letter of Intent works without a fairly deep review."

The discussion about an early signing period in college football is hardly a new one. The American Football Coaches Association in 2008 drafted a proposal for a mid-December signing period, but the commissioners ultimately voted it down.

Since then, recruits are making their verbal commitments earlier and earlier. There is more flipping to different schools, and the number of transfers is rising. Coaches like Maryland's Randy Edsall and Nebraska's Bo Pelini have proposed ways to slow down the recruiting process.

"We know the consequences of what we're doing, and I don't think anybody's comfortable with the babysitting and the flipping and summer environment," Delany said. "I don't want to anything unless we take a real, hard look at football recruitment: what's working and what's not.

Rajiv from Tallahassee, Fla., writes: Do you think that there are any programs in the B1G that would automatically get or deserve a spot in the playoff if they ran the table in any given year? Secondly, suppose a team like Northwestern or Minnesota ran the table and then beat a 12-0 Michigan State team in the BIG Championship. Should one of those teams get an automatic bid? Don't think that situation would happen, but certainly an undefeated Ohio State would garner more recognition than Northwestern.

Adam Rittenberg: Rajiv, it's my belief that any major-conference team that runs the table and wins a league title game to go 13-0 would make the field of four. Why else would you expand the field from two to four? Most Big Ten teams are playing at least one marquee non-league opponent, so even if their league schedule is a little soft like Iowa's or Wisconsin's this year, a perfect mark would be enough to get them in, regardless of their reputation. It would be incredibly disappointing if the committee functions like poll voters and gives preferences to historically strong teams. There would have to be odd circumstances -- two or more undefeated teams from major conferences -- for a 13-0 Big Ten team to be left out.

More on Penn State

For full coverage of the Nittany Lions, check out the Penn State blog, part of ESPN's College Football Nation. Blog

Jason from Tampa writes: What are your thoughts around Penn State and its stance on the Paterno lawsuit? On one hand, Penn State is a defendant in the lawsuit, has made great strides, and a majority of the severe sanctions are behind them. On the other hand, Penn State might get temporary or full relief of all sanctions. Do you believe their stance is a calculated move to avoid bad publicity and not disrupt the relationship with the NCAA in regards to further sanction reductions?

Adam Rittenberg: Jason, I think your first point about Penn State making strides and moving past some of the more severe sanctions is a motivator for the school's position. There's no full relief from the sanctions, since Penn State has had two bowl-eligible teams stay home and continues to operate with reduced scholarships. But the school clearly feels that cooperation with the NCAA is the best route. Penn State also has aligned itself with the Freeh Report, which the Paterno family claims isn't credible. Ultimately, PSU seems too far down the road in lockstep with the NCAA to dramatically change its position.

Paul from Lincoln, Neb., writes: I heard Ed Cunningham say on "College Football Live" that from what he observed in the Big Ten last year that the QB play is very poor compared to other conferences. My question(s) to you is: 1) Do you really believe the QB play is that bad in the conference? 2) Who are the QBs in the BIG that could go and start for other major college football programs in other conferences? (You can pull names from last year as well).

Adam Rittenberg: Paul, quarterback play in the Big Ten has been down for some time. The league hasn't had a quarterback selected in the first round of the NFL draft since Penn State's Kerry Collins in 1995. That's stunning. Although quarterbacks such as Drew Brees (Purdue), Tom Brady (Michigan) and Russell Wilson (Wisconsin) have gone on to win Super Bowls, the league isn't mass-producing elite signal-callers. Something needs to shift, and it could be the quality of quarterback coaches in the Big Ten. Besides Indiana's Kevin Wilson, are there any true QB gurus in the B1G?

Moss from Ann Arbor, Mich., writes: The Big Ten is starting to resemble a very wealthy yet dysfunctional family. Consumed by more wealth and shiny toys but not paying attention to their children (teams) as they grossly underperform. Is the BIG more interested in the brand than the actual product? The conference has all the advantages but can't seem to get its proverbial act together.

Adam Rittenberg: Moss, it just doesn't seem to add up. A league should be able to build its brand, generate revenue for its schools and win championships on the field. What do you mean by not paying attention? What do you want the Big Ten to do for its underperforming teams? That's the hard part. Commissioner Jim Delany gets criticized a lot, but he has significantly increased the resources for Big Ten programs, which can pay coaches more and invest in their facilities. Ultimately, the Big Ten can move its campuses to the south and west, where more of the elite players are. But I don't agree the league is neglecting its programs by trying to expand its brand.

More on Ohio State

For full coverage of the Buckeyes, check out the Ohio State blog, part of ESPN's College Football Nation. Blog

@roberthendricks via Twitter writes: Do you think OSU has a long-term solution going forward in J.T. Barrett, Cardale Jones or Stephen Collier? I know taking a hot QB in this class is essential, but what if they don't? Post-Braxton fear is setting in.

Adam Rittenberg: That fear is real, Robert, as Ohio State's quarterback situation beyond 2014 seems cloudy. Miller's injury this spring allowed Jones and Barrett both to get some significant work in practice. While both struggled in the spring game, Jones enters the summer as Miller's primary backup. Ohio State would be wise to get at least one, if not both, into games this season, even in mop-up time. Collier seems like more of a project, and all three men need some time to develop. I don't think it's realistic to expect Ohio State's next quarterback to match Miller's big-play ability.

Kirk Irwin/Getty Images Ohio State is the league's largest athletic program with 36 varsity sports and a massive, often sold-out football stadium.

Michigan State athletic director Mark Hollis was scheduled to meet with reporters during the lunch break of Wednesday's Big Ten administrators' meetings, but he showed up earlier than expected.

He jokingly offered a possible reason for his escape.

"It seems like every vote we take," Hollis said, "costs us $100,000."

Expenses are rising for major-conference schools, especially with the welfare of college athletes in the national spotlight. One area that continues to get more expensive is the cost of home games, and the prices will continue to rise.

While Big Ten schools make millions from football games in their campus stadiums, they also are paying large guarantees for opponents to show up and play. According to recent analysis from "Outside the Lines," Big Ten teams paid nearly $42 million to visiting teams in all sports during the 2012-13 season (this includes Rutgers and Maryland, but not Northwestern, a private institution that doesn't report figures). The Big Ten, with its big football stadiums and broad-based athletic programs, paid more to opponents than any other conference. It's not a surprise considering many Big Ten teams make more than $3 million per football home game.

In 2012-13, Ohio State led the nation in money paid to opponents ($7,999,881), followed by Minnesota ($4,799,383) and Wisconsin ($3,987,864). Two other Big Ten teams -- Michigan State ($3,650,864) and Indiana ($3,375,562) -- finished in the top 10, and 10 schools finished in the top 25.

Ohio State has spent more on visiting teams in each of the past six years, averaging $7.4 million per year. Its total spent since 2007-08 ($44,418,002) is more than double that of the next Big Ten school, Indiana ($21,576,798). The simple explanation for the disparity: Ohio State is the league's largest athletic program with 36 varsity sports, and with a massive, often sold-out football stadium, it spends because it can.

"We’ll net north of about $7 million off of each [home football] game," Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith told ESPN.com. "That's why we can afford to pay that guarantee. If you're over 100,000 seats -- you look at Michigan, us, Penn State, Tennessee -- you have to look at their average ticket price, which is typically north of $75. Then, you're probably looking at $5-7 million that those stadiums are netting individually.

"So when you take out a $1-million, $1.2-million, $1.3-million guarantee, you can handle it."

According to the Associated Press, Ohio State will pay more than $2 million in guarantee money to its three home nonconference opponents this season (Virginia Tech, Cincinnati and Kent State). The Buckeyes also will receive an $850,000 guarantee for playing Navy in Baltimore.

These fees aren't new to college football. Many major-conference schools with big stadiums have been spending $800,000 or more on guarantees since the latter part of the last decade. In 2008, both Ohio State and Michigan State paid more than $5.5 million to road teams, finishing first and second nationally, respectively.

"We're in the market, we're part of that market because we’re a large stadium," Smith said. "It's just what you have to do today to get the mix."

BENEVOLENT HOSTS

Average money spent on visiting teams from 2007-13 for Big Ten teams. Ohio State has led the country in this category for the six years surveyed. (Northwestern, a private school, did not release figures.)

The problem going forward is inventory, a word used by several Big Ten athletic directors at last week's meetings. Although the Big Ten moves to a nine-game league schedule in 2016, which reduces the number of nonconference games to schedule, the demand for nonleague home games remains high, if not higher. Big Ten teams will have five conference road games every other year, so to get the seven home games most need to meet budgets, all three nonleague games must be at home.

The Big Ten also has placed a moratorium on scheduling FCS opponents, a route many Big Ten teams have taken because FCS schools don't require return games and have relatively lower guarantee fees. So Big Ten teams in many cases must find FBS teams willing to play on the road without requiring a return.

"The issue with nine is inventory," Wisconsin athletic director Barry Alvarez said. "You're trying to schedule all [FBS] schools. The inventory becomes questionable. People don't want to go home-and-home. You try to stay at seven games at home, it's very difficult to do that in the year that you have four Big Ten games at home. So there are some issues."

One of them is cost.

"As the supply shrinks," Hollis said, "those that are in the window of who you want to play have the ability to ask for more."

Like many college football observers, Smith had hoped both the SEC and ACC would join the Pac-12, Big 12 and, soon, the Big Ten in adopting nine-game league schedules. But he didn't see it as a competitive balance issue.

The problem: inventory.

"If they'd gone to nine, obviously there's a lot more inventory out there because they would only schedule three [nonleague games]," Smith said. "Everyone is trying to schedule the same types of nonconference games in the same window of time, September. It's challenging."

Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany, while reiterating the need to avoid scheduling FCS opponents, says he will assist member schools with the scheduling dilemma. Some schools are exploring neutral-site games, which are lucrative and have gained greater popularity in recent years. Penn State AD Dave Joyner, who will watch the Nittany Lions open the 2014 season in Ireland, said, "It's almost like having a home game."

But Big Ten ADs also have been resistant to move games -- and the money they generate -- away from local markets.

"I don't know about the neutral-site thing," Minnesota AD Norwood Teague said. "We just built a stadium on campus, a beautiful new 50,000-seat facility. That was built for a purpose, and $150 million of that stadium was paid for by taxpayer dollars."

Hollis also has stiff-armed the neutral-site trend, but he acknowledged last week that MSU and longtime rival Notre Dame are discussing a neutral-site contest, possibly in Chicago.

"Some of us aren't traditional thinkers," he said. "You can come up with some creative ways that make sense for student-athletes, fans and … that you can meet your financial challenges."

Shane from Maine writes: I usually ask Wolverines-related questions, but something else caught my attention. What are your thoughts on Iowa's schedule? It looks REALLY soft. Do you think the Hawkeyes have a chance to go undefeated in a season that has their toughest games at home against Wisconsin and Nebraska?

Adam Rittenberg: Iowa's schedule looks extremely beneficial, Shane, but I don't see the Hawkeyes running the table. They're a good team that could build on last season's success, but the Hawkeyes almost always find themselves in close games because their talent isn't head and shoulders above the competition. Easy schedule or hard schedule, you need to be a truly elite team with elite talent to run the table in a major conference (see: 2013 Florida State Seminoles). Iowa will end up on the short end of some close game, but I predict a good season (9-10 wins).

Jeff from Baltimore writes: This week, we saw what I would call (Jim) Delany's most out-of-the-box, hell, out-of-the world, decision in giving the 2017 BBall tourney to D.C. Now, living in Baltimore, I like the idea of cutting out of work early and driving to the Verizon Center, but it won't have the same feeling as if it would and should in either Indy or Chi-town. Do you see him repeating this thinking for the football championship?

Adam Rittenberg: Jeff, I wrote about this back in January. There's no desire to move the football championship game outside of the Midwest. The Big Ten loves Indianapolis and everything it brings, and it could consider sites like Chicago, Minneapolis and Detroit in future years. The difference with football is the event includes only two teams and two fan bases, not all 14. It's less likely to draw general Big Ten fans than the basketball tournament, a multi-day event featuring more games and teams. Big Ten deputy commissioner Brad Traviolia said of the hoops tournament: "Regardless of where you place it, you're going to have a team or two that basically will be a home team, whether it's Indiana and Purdue in Indianapolis or whether it's Maryland in D.C. or Rutgers and Penn State in New York." Geography matters more for the football title game.

Grant from San Francisco writes: As a lifelong Spartans fan, I am becoming increasingly weary of all the unbridled optimism surrounding the program this coming season. I have experienced this before and know just how fast the wheels can come off. You guys spent some time with the team, so maybe you can provide some insight. With a huge matchup in Week 2 against Oregon, what exactly is [Mark] Dantonio doing now that the team is starting at the top with everything to lose, rather than starting unranked with nothing to lose? Quotes keep coming out about "we are hungry"... "we are tired of talking about last year"... but how exactly are they preventing complacency?

Adam Rittenberg: Grant, I understand your concern about MSU's history when starting on top, but it's also important to acknowledge the culture change under Mark Dantonio. This team has won 11 or more games in three of the past four seasons. MSU had a disappointing 2012 season but was a few plays away from winning eight or nine games. Also, the quarterback situation with Connor Cook is much more stable than it was in 2012. Brian Bennett visited the Spartans this spring and came away thinking they're locked in and not getting complacent. The continuity in the coaching staff really helps, and most MSU players suffered through the 2012 season and haven't forgotten it. You don't really know how a team responds until the games begin, but Dantonio isn't the type to let anyone take their foot off of the gas. His recent track record confirms this.

Rolf from Seattle writes: I have to question your Ohio State draft pick of Devin Gardner. First off he went to that school up north, so that would never happen. Second, he is going to be gone next year anyway and doesn't leave Ohio State with any more time left than Braxton. Third, with three backups behind Braxton, another year in the system should get at least two of them ready to carry the torch. Fourth, Devin went to TSUN!!!!! Anyway, the blog is still awesome.

Adam Rittenberg: Thanks, Rolf, and yes, I realize sending a Michigan player to Ohio State doesn't sit well with all (Justin Boren worked out OK, though). The Buckeyes clearly need a quarterback to replace Braxton Miller, and I'm not confident enough in any of the current backups to step in, especially with a revamped offensive line. Brian had the Buckeyes adding Tre Roberson, who has more eligibility left than Gardner and also fits in a spread offense. But I think Gardner, in the right system like Ohio State's, has more upside. Despite Michigan's offensive line troubles, Gardner still finished second in the league in passing and had some huge games. Ohio State needs a one-year fill-in here, and Gardner is the best option.

Greg from Boulder writes: As a suddenly greedy Penn State fan, should I have any concern that Penn State is having trouble closing the deal on top talent in the secondary in the way-too-early 2015 class?

Adam Rittenberg: Concern? About Penn State's 2015 class? No, don't be concerned. What James Franklin and his staff have done in the past four months is rather remarkable, especially with the program still under NCAA sanctions. They already have Jarvis Miller in the fold and will add other defensive backs before signing day, which is a very long way away. Also remember that Penn State likely will only lose two players -- safeties Adrian Amos and Ryan Keiser -- from this year's secondary rotation.

Mike McGinnis/Getty ImagesWill Melvin Gordon's Heisman chances be affected by the lack of prime-time games in November?

Jackie from NYC writes: I think the biggest loser in the prime-time schedule is Melvin Gordon. We already know he's likely to split carries with Corey Clement, and now he's not going to get the chance to really put on a show in primetime during Big Ten season. Am I right? How does the schedule affect his Heisman chances?

Adam Rittenberg: That's a fair question, Jackie. Gordon undoubtedly would benefit from another prime-time game or two in November, especially if he's among the leaders for the Heisman. The good news is he has a terrific opportunity right away to make a national statement in the opener against LSU. The Tigers are consistently one of the nation's top defenses, and if Gordon has a big night in Houston, he'll be on the Heisman radar. It will be up to him to stay there with big performances against mostly middling competition until the end of the season, but the LSU game provides a platform for Gordon to make a splash. He could have another pre-Heisman prime-time opportunity if he leads Wisconsin to the Big Ten championship game in Indy, where he had a pretty decent night in 2012.

Danny O. from Davenport, Iowa, writes: The fact Iowa goes a second year in a row without any prime-time games is utterly disgusting. I know people outside of Hawkeye Nation will try and defend this decision by bringing up the the weak schedule, and normally they would be right. My question, however, is how can anyone justify giving Illinois ANY prime-time games, let alone two? If the B1G can make a case for this by giving in to Urban Meyer's whining for more prime-time games and giving them Illinois in one of those slots, certainly Iowa deserves one PT game in the past two years. Am I wrong?

Rittenberg: It's not about deserving, Danny. These are business decisions made by TV programming executives and athletic administrators from each school. Ohio State brings in larger regional and national TV audiences than Iowa, even when it's playing a team like Illinois. If Jim Tressel had wanted more night games, he would have gotten no complaints from the TV folks. So it's more of an Ohio State-Iowa issue than an Illinois-Iowa issue.

Iowa has been more conservative about night games, stating a preference about having one or two per year, not four or five. Athletic director Gary Barta said in 2012, "On our campus, one is fine. I don't know that we'll go to two. I'm confident it wouldn't go beyond that." If you combine that preference with an underwhelming schedule where the best games are at the end, when weather does enter the equation, you get no night games.

More on Nebraska

Brian from Magnolia, Texas, writes: Huge Husker fan here excited about all of the prime-time games this year. One question, when will we get to play Indiana? If memory serves correctly, we haven't played them yet and aren't scheduled to play them until at least 2015-16.

Brian from Iowa writes: For a long time now, teams like Iowa and Wisconsin have supported the B1G unconditionally, even when there has been a perceived league bias towards teams with richer histories. While I would have thought the question ridiculous a year ago, is it possible that Jim Delany's greed will eventually drive fans away? They already have trouble engaging students (future donors) and nothing endears current Big Ten boosters like a night game played at a mediocre stadium in New Jersey.

Rittenberg: Brian, I understand your anger about the prime-time selections, but you might have the wrong target. Jim Delany doesn't make the prime-time schedules. The league's television partners, along with the individual school administrators, are the power players here. Each school has its own preferences and constraints. A lot of things need to match up for a night game to work. If my team is left off the prime-time slate, I'm taking it up with my athletic director. Delany's recent expansion moves have turned off some Big Ten fans and he'll be judged appropriately. But his role in the prime-time schedule isn't as significant as many believe.

Jake from Seattle writes: What is your sense of the NU football team's response to the university's efforts to dissuade them from voting to form a union? Based on what I've read, my gut says the probability the team gets the votes needed to unionize is quite slim. I mean, having your coach and your university (both of which appear to do things the right way as far as D1 sports are concerned) openly against this must be pretty tough. Is your sense that the players are able to separate that voting to collectively bargain is not a referendum on Fitz or the university, but really on how the NCAA unfairly treats college athletes? I admit that I am biased. I think the players voting yes is in their best interest -- as well as the interests of other athletes that will invariably follow.

Rittenberg: Jake, some players might make that separation, but many feel that the debate has turned from national to Northwestern. Kain Colter's testimony at the Chicago NLRB hearing fundamentally shifted the focus from the NCAA to Northwestern. It led to a favorable ruling for Colter and CAPA, but it turned off some of his former teammates. Northwestern also thought the initial campaign was national, not local. Keep in mind that the Northwestern union ruling would apply only to private schools, which represent a small fraction of the FBS. My sense is they'll vote no, but I've been wrong on pretty much everything regarding this story.

Wishing you a great spring weekend (right, Mother Nature?). Join the Twitter train.

Sup?

Kevin from Pittsburgh writes: This might sound like a weird question but do you think Penn State's recruiting success this offseason will have any impact on the NCAA potentially lifting the bowl ban? There was some optimism it could be lifted for this season, if not next. But with James Franklin seemingly overcoming the other intended punishments, would the NCAA be worried about a perception of letting PSU off the hook? Stop me if I'm overthinking here but this certainly wouldn't be the first time the NCAA has made a decision based on it's own perception.

More on Penn State

For full coverage of the Nittany Lions, check out the Penn State blog, part of ESPN's College Football Nation. Blog

Adam Rittenberg: No, it certainly would not, Kevin. Trying to get inside the mind of the NCAA is a dangerous and often futile endeavor. My hope is any decision made about the sanctions would have nothing to do with how Franklin is recruiting. Penn State is being assessed for how it conducts itself as a program from a compliance and integrity standpoint, and the success in games or in recruiting really shouldn't matter with potentially reduced penalties. Also, the 2015 recruiting class won't impact the 2014 team, which has some depth problems stemming from the NCAA sanctions.

Jim from Albany, N.Y., writes: As a season-ticket holder who doesn't mind the 200+ mile trip for every home game, I'm wondering what Rutgers (and/or Maryland too) do to be accepted by the average B1G fan? Reading everything from "meh" to "I'm never going to attend a Rutgers/Maryland game in my team's stadium" is tough when the average Rutgers fan is thrilled about being able to take a step up. I've not read this in any of the other realignment moves in any of the conferences (except perhaps WVU in the Big 12 or Mizzou in the SEC), but not so vitriolic as the B1G boards. Comments?

Adam Rittenberg: Jim, there are a few factors involved here. Many Big Ten fans didn't want the league to expand again. Those who did wanted additions with stronger athletic traditions than Rutgers. Although Scarlet Knights football had a breakthrough under Greg Schiano, Rutgers doesn't match the historic accomplishments of Nebraska and Penn State, the Big Ten's most recent expansion additions. There's just not an obvious reason to get excited. Also, the demographic argument the Big Ten used with adding Rutgers and Maryland, while making sense on several levels, doesn't resonate with the average fan. There are also geographic and cultural differences between the traditional Big Ten footprint and the East Coast. Penn State deals with a similar divide.

B1G fan from the Midwest writes: I know I'm about to ask something blasphemous to some longtime B1G fans, but is there a name change in the conference's future? Myself included, most members of the B1G are proud of tradition and are reluctant to change. I can understand sweeping it under the rug at 11 teams or maybe even 12, but when it's at 14 shouldn't it be considered? Maybe something non number related like the SEC and ACC have.

Adam Rittenberg: It's not happening, B1G fan. Commissioner Jim Delany actually was open to a change when the Big Ten added Penn State in 1989, but the league presidents and other power players wanted the name to remain. Same thing happened when the league added Nebraska. There's too much meaning and history in that name, and while it's quite mathematically inaccurate, most Big Ten folks can live with it.

More on Ohio State

John from Kansas City, Mo., writes: The B1G has 6 members (Iowa, Nebraska, Indiana, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Purdue) located in what are considered "talent poor" states. That is half of the conference (MD and Rutgers excluded) that has to actively recruit outside of their backyard. Not to mention they all border states that have more than one FBS school. The SEC on the other hand, has 10 schools in the top 15 "talent rich" states, so it seems the recruiting soil is a bit more fertile in the South. Meyer and Franklin are obviously great recruiters but they are also located squarely in the middle of two very saturated regions and are pulling huge numbers from their immediate footprint(s). Location and population are just as big of factors in recruiting as to which coach is running the show. It seems unfair to assume the B1G coaches aren't working hard enough.

Adam Rittenberg: Some good points here, John. The population deck is undoubtedly stacked in the SEC's favor, no matter which set of recruiting rankings you trust. And you're right that Ohio State and Penn State can recruit locally and regionally more than programs like Iowa, Wisconsin and Nebraska. I wonder if there's an extra gear that both Meyer and Franklin --as well as their assistants -- reach on the recruiting trail. I know a lot of Big Ten coaches that label their programs "developmental" and take pride in that distinction. I wonder if that approach limits how much they can push for the upper-tier recruits.

More on Michigan

For full coverage of the Wolverines, check out the Michigan blog, part of ESPN's College Football Nation. Blog

Bruce from Los Angeles writes: Simple question: If Michigan fails to win 8 games next year, Brady Hoke is fired? Yes or No?

Adam Rittenberg: A simple question, Bruce, but a not-so simple answer. If Michigan endures a wave of injuries, loses several close games in the final minute and beats one of its rivals on the road -- Michigan State, Ohio State or Notre Dame -- I think Hoke stays. Dave Brandon is firmly in Hoke's corner and doesn't want to make a change. But if Michigan remains relatively healthy, endures the same problems it did in 2013 and gets blown out in rivalry games, the pressure on Brandon could be too great and Hoke would need to go.

Trailblazers: Doug Williams And Cardale Jones Conversation Part 2

Jay Harris sits down with Doug Williams, the first African-American QB to win a Super Bowl, and Cardale Jones, the young QB who seemingly came out of nowhere to lead the Ohio State Buckeyes to the inaugural College Football Playoff National Championship.